3 ms·

I actually do this as well. Blank <body> tags from Angular et al get the same treatment, too. If some site doesn't want to send an an actual readable document,

by pdkl95 11y ago

I actually do this as well. Blank <body> tags from Angular et al get the same treatment, too. If some site doesn't want to send an an actual readable document, then there's no reason to waste any time reading it. Unfortunately, I fear this is not a long-term solution as it lacks critical mass to effect any meaningful change. Too many sites already try various technical workarounds for ads and tracking purposes.

tomjen3 11y ago
Angular is for data in an interactive app. I really don't see how you can make an interactive app without Javascript (you could do as HN do and make it reload a new page all the time).
- pdkl95 11y ago
  It doesn't matter what it's "for" - I've seen quite a few sites where it's being used to render static content. Well, at least what should be static content (i.e. articles/blog-posts, basic index or portal hompages). example: http://www.intel.com http://www.intel.com I don't intend to single out Angular. I'm talking about any framework that renders empty pages. For example, http://www.meteor.com/ http://www.meteor.com/ renders an empty body tag, and I doubt their homepage requires interactivity. (I'm not talking about anybody that uses a framework but still renders an actual document)
- userbinator 11y ago
  The vast majority of the time when I'm looking for something I'm not looking for a web app; I'm looking for a web page that I can instantly read and find what I need. Imagine going to a library and finding out the books had unskippable autoplaying videos and animations every time you turned a page, and you had to wait before you could see the text. Contrary to the trend, not every site needs to be a web app. I feel like all the features of HTML5 are leading to something a lot like the Flash-only sites that blossomed during the late 90s and early 00s; just as inaccessible and user-hostile, except even more resource-consuming. The fact that it's built into the browser instead of a plugin and standardised does not make any difference to the end result.

by pdkl95 11y ago

tomjen3 11y ago

Angular is for data in an interactive app. I really don't see how you can make an interactive app without Javascript (you could do as HN do and make it reload a new page all the time).

pdkl95 11y ago
It doesn't matter what it's "for" - I've seen quite a few sites where it's being used to render static content. Well, at least what should be static content (i.e. articles/blog-posts, basic index or portal hompages). example: http://www.intel.com http://www.intel.com I don't intend to single out Angular. I'm talking about any framework that renders empty pages. For example, http://www.meteor.com/ http://www.meteor.com/ renders an empty body tag, and I doubt their homepage requires interactivity. (I'm not talking about anybody that uses a framework but still renders an actual document)
userbinator 11y ago
The vast majority of the time when I'm looking for something I'm not looking for a web app; I'm looking for a web page that I can instantly read and find what I need. Imagine going to a library and finding out the books had unskippable autoplaying videos and animations every time you turned a page, and you had to wait before you could see the text. Contrary to the trend, not every site needs to be a web app. I feel like all the features of HTML5 are leading to something a lot like the Flash-only sites that blossomed during the late 90s and early 00s; just as inaccessible and user-hostile, except even more resource-consuming. The fact that it's built into the browser instead of a plugin and standardised does not make any difference to the end result.